Democrats to propose legislation expanding the Supreme Court

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Pathetic...of course, most biden voters couldn’t even name one SCJ so they have no idea what this is even about.

[Realville]

I guess they didn’t believe Trump. Here’s a statement he put out today about that subject. They are going to get what they deserve. What a bunch of cowards.

 

[Hagar]

It’s official, The Big Bang Theory is no longer the best comedy show of all time.   The Biden Admin takes over number 1.   And you’re right LRF, four out of five Dem voters couldn’t name a single justice.   This is all about power.   If stuff like this doesn’t open the voters eyes, it’s game over.

[Hagar]

Okay, so they add two making it 11.  Republicans get in, make it 13.  And on & on it goes.  Insanity.

HOLD THE PRESSES:

It’s 4, so 13.  Then Repubs add 4 to 17.   By the years 2040, the SCOTUS will convene at Fed Ex Field so there will be enough seats.  😂🤣😂

[Hagar]

This really concerns me.  The Dems have the President and the Congress.  The third seat of power is judicial.  Dems want to take over that by packing the SCOTUS.  There will be no checks and balances, it will be absolute power.   The fate of this country will lie in the hands of a Democratic Senator, WVA’s Joe Manchin.   The stakes are higher than most can imagine.  This exposes how insane the Left has become.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

22 minutes ago, Hagar said:

This really concerns me.  The Dems have the President and the Congress.  The third seat of power is judicial.  Dems want to take over that by packing the SCOTUS.  There will be no checks and balances, it will be absolute power.   The fate of this country will lie in the hands of a Democratic Senator, WVA’s Joe Manchin.   The stakes are higher than most can imagine.  This exposes how insane the Left has become.

 

You are exactly right, the most important man in America right now.

[bullets13]

26 minutes ago, Hagar said:

This really concerns me.  The Dems have the President and the Congress.  The third seat of power is judicial.  Dems want to take over that by packing the SCOTUS.  There will be no checks and balances, it will be absolute power.   The fate of this country will lie in the hands of a Democratic Senator, WVA’s Joe Manchin.   The stakes are higher than most can imagine.  This exposes how insane the Left has become.

 

yeah, it's pretty terrifying.  IMO, in a perfect world the entire supreme court would be filled with moderates.  our country is split fairly close to 50/50 conservative/liberal.  I want a supreme court that will take EVERYONE into account when making their decisions, not just their political ideologies.  that said, as long as the left basically has total control, I definitely want a conservative court.  It's insane to think that the left has narrow margins in the house, there's a tie in the senate, and they won the presidency by a narrow margin, but now they can alter the makeup of the supreme court and take total control.  The idea that the slimmest majority can completely alter every aspect of the political landscape doesn't set well with me at all.  It would be different if we were talking about 80% of the country wanting these changes.  

[Hagar]

49 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

yeah, it's pretty terrifying.  IMO, in a perfect world the entire supreme court would be filled with moderates.  our country is split fairly close to 50/50 conservative/liberal.  I want a supreme court that will take EVERYONE into account when making their decisions, not just their political ideologies.  that said, as long as the left basically has total control, I definitely want a conservative court.  It's insane to think that the left has narrow margins in the house, there's a tie in the senate, and they won the presidency by a narrow margin, but now they can alter the makeup of the supreme court and take total control.  The idea that the slimmest majority can completely alter every aspect of the political landscape doesn't set well with me at all.  It would be different if we were talking about 80% of the country wanting these changes.  

OOLs But I agree.

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

yeah, it's pretty terrifying.  IMO, in a perfect world the entire supreme court would be filled with moderates.  our country is split fairly close to 50/50 conservative/liberal.  I want a supreme court that will take EVERYONE into account when making their decisions, not just their political ideologies.  that said, as long as the left basically has total control, I definitely want a conservative court.  It's insane to think that the left has narrow margins in the house, there's a tie in the senate, and they won the presidency by a narrow margin, but now they can alter the makeup of the supreme court and take total control.  The idea that the slimmest majority can completely alter every aspect of the political landscape doesn't set well with me at all.  It would be different if we were talking about 80% of the country wanting these changes.  

How does one be a moderate when it comes to the Constitution?  

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

How does one be a moderate when it comes to the Constitution?  

They don't politicize their interpretation of it in an effort to push rulings as far left or right as possible.  And yes, there is plenty of interpretation to be had, which is why the supreme court has been making constitutional rulings since the 19th century.  

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

They don't politicize their interpretation of it in an effort to push rulings as far left or right as possible.  And yes, there is plenty of interpretation to be had, which is why the supreme court has been making constitutional rulings since the 19th century.  

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Yes, they do, and on all levels, not just the SC.

There are those that say Obama would have been a great SCJ and he doesn't disagree, and this is a man that called the Constitution a "a charter of negative liberties."  Now would he really rule based on the Constitution?  I'll answer, no.

The SCJs that he appointed reflect his views.

The main problem isn't the SC, it's a congress that refuses to allow the Constitution to guide them which brings cases to the SC that they should never have to rule on in the first place. (Obamacare being one example)   

[baddog]

They want to stack the court so that it can be ruled illegal to own a firearm. This will start another civil war.

[Realville]

Packing the Supreme Court is an act of political terrorism.

[bullets13]

50 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yes, they do, and on all levels, not just the SC.

There are those that say Obama would have been a great SCJ and he doesn't disagree, and this is a man that called the Constitution a "a charter of negative liberties."  Now would he really rule based on the Constitution?  I'll answer, no.

The SCJs that he appointed reflect his views.

The main problem isn't the SC, it's a congress that refuses to allow the Constitution to guide them which brings cases to the SC that they should never have to rule on in the first place. (Obamacare being one example)   

Yes, they do.  But he asked how one takes a moderate look at the constitution.  In general with a lot more common sense and a literal interpretation, whereas justices with strong ideological leanings either direction tend to come up with some pretty creative interpretations that benefit their party and political beliefs.  As for your "all levels" comment, it's always been amazing to me how some no-name biased circuit judge from Buttcrack, Oregon can make a ruling on some national policy and it shuts the whole thing down.  

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Yes, they do.  But he asked how one takes a moderate look at the constitution.  In general with a lot more common sense and a literal interpretation, whereas justices with strong ideological leanings either direction tend to come up with some pretty creative interpretations that benefit their party and political beliefs.  As for your "all levels" comment, it's always been amazing to me thow some no-name biased circuit judge from Buttcrack, Oregon can make a ruling on some national policy and it shuts the whole thing down.  

Agree, the legislating from the bench has always been a major problem to true justice.

Also agree that the bias can come from both sides, should have stated that in my earlier post.

Take the Constitution at face value in it's own wording, if that's a moderate approach (no bias, left or right), I'm in. 

[BS Wildcats]

Can you imagine the outrage from the media if Trump had wanted to do this?  Those of you that don’t think that the Demoncrats are in search of a Socialist society, here you go.  From this, to changing voting laws, they are after total control.  They truly are a sorry bunch of people.  Sen. Joe Manchin needs to switch parties.  He is probably the only Dim that sees the danger his party is causing!

[Reagan]

From the article:  "In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a Senate floor speech about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's doomed 1937 plan to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court. FDR's plan would have permitted him to add six justices, immediately securing a pro-New Deal judicial majority. But "in an act of great courage, Roosevelt's own party stood up against this institutional power grab," Biden recounted 16 years ago. "They did not agree with the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, but they believed that Roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism.""

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

From the article:  "In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a Senate floor speech about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's doomed 1937 plan to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court. FDR's plan would have permitted him to add six justices, immediately securing a pro-New Deal judicial majority. But "in an act of great courage, Roosevelt's own party stood up against this institutional power grab," Biden recounted 16 years ago. "They did not agree with the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, but they believed that Roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism.""

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Biden called it a “bonehead” idea.

[Realville]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

From the article:  "In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a Senate floor speech about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's doomed 1937 plan to "pack" the U.S. Supreme Court. FDR's plan would have permitted him to add six justices, immediately securing a pro-New Deal judicial majority. But "in an act of great courage, Roosevelt's own party stood up against this institutional power grab," Biden recounted 16 years ago. "They did not agree with the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, but they believed that Roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism.""

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I think liberals call that evolving.